Above, you’ll see the cover of Batman – Bruce Wayne: Fugitive #1, published not so long ago in 2002. We direct your attention to the wanted poster hanging just above where Batman is standing. Now, let’s not consider the great coincidence of Batman happening to find himself right next to a wanted poster featuring a picture of Bruce Wayne. Let’s instead focus on the wanted poster itself. First off, it doesn’t suggest what the reader is to do if he or she happens to see Bruce Wayne. There’s no toll free number to call; there’s no reference to any police force or law enforcement authorities to contact. Plus, there’s not even a hint of a reward! No wonder Bruce Wayne is running around free somewhere!

Okay, so who pre-ordered an iPhone 5 today? Not us, we must confess. We here at Abnormal Use will wait for the iPhone 6. If you did, please let us know if you were successful. Further, to keep up with all the iPhone related madness, we suggest you read Jeff Richardson’s excellent iPhone J.D. blog, which is covering this story in full.

Our fearless leader, Mills Gallivan, has been elected to serve as the President of the National Foundation for Judicial Excellence (NFJE).  The NFJE, established in 2004, is a non-profit organization that supports an independent and well-versed judiciary in order to promote excellence and fairness in the civil justice system.  The NFJE accomplishes this task through providing education to the judiciary as well as hosting an annual national symposium for state appellate judges.

How long has it been since you read the Abnormal Use mission statement, published way, way back on January 4, 2010? If it’s been a while, or if you’ve never read it, you can check it out here.

Earlier this week, we ran a post on the Aurora, Colorado shooting litigation. That post has drawn a few comments, so if you missed that exchange, be sure to revisit it.

Just as we did last week, we turn this week to Superman: The Man of Steel, issue #51 to be exact, because of its connection to the fabled “Trial of Superman.” On the cover, Superman appears to be sword fighting with a pirate, which must be true, because the narrative title is “Sky Pirates.” Why Superman is using a sword is beyond us, but the real question is what any of this has to do with a trial. Whatever the case, we certainly object to Superman’s hairstyle.

Don’t forget! As we noted yesterday, TODAY is the deadline to nominate legal blogs to this year’s ABA Journal Blawg 100 list. If you’d like to nominate a blawg (perhaps even us), you can do so here.

We’re big fans of @TweetsOfOld, a Twitter account that posts “tweets” – really just short news items – from really old newspapers.  One such tweet this week, from a 1917 Missouri newspaper, shows that not much has changed in personal injury litigation in 95 years. (By the way, we’ve previously mentioned @TweetsOfOld here, here, and here.  If you’re feeling nostalgic, check it out.).

Abnormal Use Flashback: One year ago this week, on September 6, 2011, we ran”Vice Squad: On Assignment in the Gulf” by our own Steve Buckingham. Revisit a classic post.

You love social media. You love Facebook. You love Twitter. But are you communicating with us on those platforms? You can follow Abnormal Use on Twitter here and on Facebook here! Acknowledge our existence!

The ABA Journal is once again working on its annual list of the 100 best legal blogs.  At present, the publication is soliciting nominations from its readers for blawgs to add to this year’s list.  Accordingly, we humbly request that you nominate us for the honor.

Note: The deadline to do so is tomorrow, September 7, 2012, at 7:00 PM Eastern time.

The ABA Journal is not just looking for the name of your favorite blog. They’d like you to offer a few lines about why that particular blog is your favorite.  What has the blog done in the past calendar year to earn your favor?  Why is it that you enjoy reading that blog?  Is it, say, a regular feature, its editorial tone of voice, a particularly impressive series of posts, or just the subject matter itself which intrigues you?

Allow us to do a bit of electioneering.  We’ve had a good year here at Abnormal Use.  Remember, this is the year when we celebrated the twentieth anniversary of My Cousin Vinny in March and featured not just interviews with cast members but also the director and screenwriter of the film.  We also ran a particularly obscure April Fool’s Day joke regarding the works of a horror writer, who died 75 years ago.  We even published a haiku on Mountain Dew.  And, of course, we indulged our editor’s penchant for nostalgia by commemorating the tenth anniversary of his graduation from law school.  We even shared with you the tale of one of our attorney’s being burned by his own Facebook profile page at a mediation.  And, of course, we ran a week long series on the perils and pitfalls of practical legal education.  Throughout the year, we have continued to bring you news on the latest product liability litigation and jurisprudence, each business day, as we have since January 2010.  So, if you like us, please feel free to nominate us for the ABA Journal’s list.

There are many great legal blogs out there, and we hope that even if we are not your favorite that you will still participate in this process and nominate your favorite blog.  We here at Abnormal Use – who are prohibited by the rules from nominating ourselves – would probably be too bashful to vote for our own site, anyway. Whatever the case, some of us here have already nominated a few of our favorite blogs for inclusion onto the list (including at least one blog which we read and enjoy but with which we disagree regularly).

You can complete the very brief nomination form here.  It will only take you a few moments.

We would appreciate your vote, and even if we are not your favorite, we would encourage you to participate in the process.

Yesterday, September 4, 2012, the Democratic National Convention began here in Charlotte, North Carolina.  You have have seen the opening speeches on television last night. Really, the convention is all anyone in Charlotte is talking about this week, and if you’re on Twitter, good luck finding a non-DNC related tweet in the Charlotte Twitter community.  (In fact, you can monitor all of the celebrity sightings in Charlotte by following this Twitter account). So, we feel obligated to dedicate at least one post to the event which has overtaken our city this fateful week.  So, let’s talk about the most exciting component of the convention: its effect on the local court system.

Yes, some – but not all – courts are closed this week. Click here to see the “Mecklenburg County Courts Operational Schedule During Democratic National Convention,” a new release issued by the 26th Judicial District of North Carolina, which encompasses the Charlotte area.  As the news release indicates, the courts here in Mecklenburg County “will operate on a limited basis.” If you’re interested, that news release includes additional details about the types of hearings and proceedings that will be ongoing this week.  Good luck finding parking, though, as downtown Charlotte will be packed.

Some law firms are closed, as well (but not us).  In fact, yesterday, in response to an email we sent to a colleague at another firm, we received the following Microsoft Outlook “out of office” message:

Due to plans for heightened security and limited traffic in out of the city during the 2012 Democratic National Convention, our office will be closed Monday September 3 through Friday September 7.  Consequently, I will be out of town on vacation during those dates.  I will have periodic access to email and voicemail during that time.  I will return to the office and normal operations will resume in our office on September 10.

Indeed.

In sum, Charlotte is a very different place this week – and not just because of the many members of the national media and the Democratic delegates.

Happy Labor Day from Abnormal Use! Just as we did two years ago, as a public service to you, our dear readers, we provide this link to the Department of Labor’s website on the history of Labor Day, which features the following quotation:

Today we also celebrate this past weekend’s return of college football, and as we noted Friday, we hope to be discussing that at least somewhat in the coming months, to the extent we can relate it to products liability litigation. Rest assured that our own Nick Farr is on the case in attempting to bring together those two topics for discussion on these pages.

Finally, we must note that in 2011 we featured the cover of the 1980’s comic book series Labor Force in our Labor Day post.  You can revisit that cover here.  Apparently, that 1980’s comic book series lasted six issues, and you can see the full cover gallery here.

Have a fun and safe day off from work, and we’ll return with our regular programming tomorrow.

Above, you’ll find the cover of Superman: The Man of Steel #50, published not so long ago in the wonderful days of 1995. We’re bringing this issue to your attention because of its part in the “Trial of Superman” narrative, which we previously mentioned here. As for this cover, all we have to say is, that’s a lot of chains. Wouldn’t it be easier just to make one chain, but have that chain be stronger? We don’t know who is putting Superman on trial, or what the charged offense is, but that’s got to be cruel, right? It’s certainly unusual.

Did you know that you can follow our writer and contributor, Nick Farr, on Twitter? Nick, you may recall, is one of our prolific hot coffee litigation writers. To do so, simply click here.

We should go ahead and say that we are excited that college football has returned to the airwaves.  Please feel free to suggest to us any football related products liability issues, or even any non-legal football topics, you think we should be discussing here.

Depicted above is the cover of Showcase #44, published way, way back in 1963. That issue was dedicated to the exploits of Tommy Tomorrow of the Planeteers who, at that point, was apparently “wanted for treason.” Treason is apparently a popular crime for comic book super heros. Here’s our question, though: If all the other inmates are wearing traditional prison garb, why does Tommy Tomorrow get to wear his own costume while in custody? No fair! In fact, this is an issue that seems to come up again and again. What gives?

Gallivan, White & Boyd, P.A.’s own Jennifer Johnsen recently published a new article on the Metropolitan Corporate Counsel website offering insights into how in-house counsel should protect their directors and officers in a “5 o’clock bombshell” lawsuit. To read the article, entitled “D&O Insurance In The Dodd-Frank Era: What You Need To Know To Protect Your Directors And Officers,” please click here (PDF).

In case you weren’t aware, most courts here in Charlotte, North Carolina will be closed during the week of the Democratic National Convention.  Quite frankly, of all the DNC related happenings, we’re more concerned about the special Foo Fighters “Rock the Vote” concert, which they say sold out in eight seconds. Wow.

Did you know that you can follow our writer and contributor, Stuart Mauney, on Twitter? Just yesterday, he authored a post on a 76 year old road trip to Texas which, of course, does not have much to do with products liability. But, we’re not just litigators here, we’re also storytellers and chroniclers of the human experience. So, to follow him on Twitter, simply click here.

A few months ago, friend of the blog and legal writer Walter Olson tweeted a link to a blog post by Jim Romenesko, referencing generally “the stories newspapers missed by not having reporters read new court filings.”  In his blog post, Romenesko profiled the efforts of an intrepid courthouse news reporter, Dave Tartre, who came across a particularly interesting priapism lawsuit brought against a automobile company. (Yes, you read that last part correctly.).

Walter’s tweet got us thinking about the nature of news coverage of legal pleadings, particularly plaintiffs’ initial complaints.  Over the years, we’ve seen various news stories reporting on complaints and new lawsuits, and we have to say that news reporting on such things can sometimes be unsatisfactory.  General publications typically recite the allegations of the complaint, quote the plaintiff’s lawyer, who is only happy to expound upon the legal theories and purported negligence of the defendant, and leave it at that.  This is not always good. There are several reasons why this is the case, and we list some of them here today.

1.  The complaint offers only side of the case, and it’s not always correct.  Obviously, by its very nature, the complaint includes only the plaintiff’s bare bones account of an alleged injury and often times, there are mistakes, errors, and misstatements in that document.  Usually, there are exaggerations to bolster the characterization of the claim, and there’s often boilerplate language, when taken out of context by the reporter, may sound unfairly suggestive or sinister. However, as we all know, during the course a lawsuit, plaintiffs learn new facts or abandon old legal theories based on previous mistakes or new impressions of certain old or recently discovered facts.

2.  Typically, a news reporter cannot reach the defendant (or a defendant’s representative) in time to meet the relevant publishing deadline to report upon the filing of the complaint.  Because the reporter only has a summons and complaint, he or she may not know how to contact the appropriate in-house counsel or claim agent at the defendant’s corporate headquarters.  Even if they do know how to reach the appropriate person for comment, the defendant may be unaware of the new lawsuit.  Even if they are aware, they may be unable to comment on brand new pending litigation which, most likely, is only just being investigated by the defendant.  Typically, this inability to obtain a meaningful comment from a defendant’s representative results in the token paragraph included in such an article that the defendant either could not be reached or could not comment if reached.  This omission does not stop the reporter from publishing the piece, and it grants some credibility to the allegations in the complaint which, as noted above, may be exaggerated, boilerplate, or even factually inaccurate under the circumstances.

3.  Many times, the news report about the initial filing is never followed up with a subsequent article reporting on the results of the case.  So, if the case is promptly dismissed, or if the defendant wins a motion for summary judgment, the news goes unreported. Perhaps in the most high profile of cases we learn such results, but you never see a subsequent article in which the plaintiff is called to task for fabricating certain facts in a deposition or the case being dismissed for other reasons.

This is not to say that one should not report on new filings.  In fact, there could be great value of such coverage.  Take a look at the coverage at Popehat on the recent Carrion v. Inman matter.  Those suits and claims were dissected by lawyer bloggers who foresaw the potentially long litigious process which may result from the filing of a complaint.

(Hat Tip: Walter Olson).

Lawyers are notoriously nuts about certain things, and we all have our pet peeves which drive us to the brink of insanity.  These are often, very, very trivial things.  For the most part, they are so minute and inconsequential that they have no bearing whatsoever on the substance of the litigation.  However, because we, as lawyers, are perfectionists, or at least like to think that we are, these little irksome things can drive us up the wall if we allow them to do so.

I write today not to urge caution, reasonableness, of diligence in the mitigation of such things. This post is reserved only for unreasonable and petty complaining about my legal pet peeves.

So, today, I share with you the two things in the practice that drive me absolutely bonkers.

First, when there is a singular individual suing a defendant in a lawsuit, you refer to that individual as the plaintiff, not plaintiffs.  For some reason or another, wherever I practice, wherever I go, I always seem to run into lawyers who refer to an individual, single plaintiff in the plural rather than the singular.  This must be a widespread phenomenon because I recall people making that error as far back as my law school days.  Surely, I’ve made the same mistake myself, but this is so commonplace that there must be something out there prompting this outrageous conduct.  (Don’t get me started on the use of an apostrophe after the “s” when we are referring to a single plaintiff using the possessive form).

But more vexing, and thankfully, less often encountered, is the manner in which we refer to requests for production and requests for admission.  How many discovery templates have we seen where we are being served with “request for production” or “request for admission?”  If there is more than one request, then you call the document “requests for production” or “requests for admission,” right? Were I far more cavalier in the practice of law, I would object under Rule 26 or whatever rule applies – even if that rule does not deal with discovery limitations – and say that if a party has titled their discovery document as a “request for production” or a “request for admission” then I will only be answering the first listed request since they did not use the plural in their caption.

I feel pretty good about my chances at a motion to compel hearing defending that response, actually.

Really, the only solution for these issues is legal education.  Therefore, I call upon all law schools to incorporate these paramount issues into their first year curriculum.

Well, or, at the very least, people should read this blog post and really contemplate this subject matter.

Friend of the blog Max Kennerly of the Litigation and Trial blog recently tweeted something about an opposing counsel leaving his iPhone at his office.  This struck a chord with me because very recently I left my iPad at a local courthouse and did not realize it until later in the evening. What horror!  What fear fell upon me!  Concern and trepidation rained down upon me!

This, I now realize, is what parents must feel when they briefly lose sight of their children at the supermarket. Without my iPad, after all, I am incomplete.

(Fortunately, I had taken all of the relevant precautions to securitize my iPad with password protection and the “Find My iPhone” app to permit me to track its location by GPS).

Whatever the case, shortly thereafter, I arrived back at my hotel and realized my grievous error.  By that time, the courthouse was closed, and no one in the building was there to answer my frantic telephone calls.  I thought to call the local county sheriff’s office to see if I might be permitted entry into the courthouse after hours to retrieve it, but they advised that I would need to wait until the next day.  Fortunately, the events that brought me to the courthouse that day were a series of depositions noticed by a plaintiff’s lawyer who, rather than selecting an office or hotel conference room, chose the grand jury room of that courthouse as the site of the depositions.  Fortunately for me, the plaintiff’s counsel had noticed so many depositions that she had scheduled them across two days, meaning that I would be returning to the courthouse the following day.  Whew. However, the fact that I was to return to the courthouse a half a day later did nothing to ameliorate my fear and concern.

It was a long night.  But here is the really interesting component of the story.  As aforementioned, on both my iPhone and my iPad, I had installed the “Find My iPhone” app.  This utility allows the user to log in, on a mobile device, tablet, or desktop computer, to Apple’s services and utilize the GPS function of the missing mobile device to identify its exact location.  The utility will then produce a map – which can be converted to an overhead satellite image – with a blinking dot indicating the precise – or almost precise – location of the missing device.  Knowing this, I immediately used this on both my iPhone and laptop to locate my iPad, which I was certain was plugged into the wall charging in the corner of the courthouse’s grand jury room.  The “Find My iPhone” app confirmed the suspicion, and the blinking dot, when placed on the overhead satellite image, appeared exactly where it should have been on the overhead image of the local courthouse.  However, there is also something perilously inexact about this utility. Depending on when the users login, how they login, what Internet connection service they use to login, and what device they use to login, they may receive an ever so slightly different result.  Thus, five minutes later, when I, in my paranoid state, sought to again confirm the location, the dot had moved slightly away from what I suspected was the grand jury room to a new position: the parking lot.  Seeing the blinking dot on the overhead aerial map in the parking lot shook me.  However, when I hit refresh, the dot returned to its original location on the aerial map image to the grand jury room.  Refreshing the image would often cause the dot to move slightly sometimes across the street, sometimes to the parking lot, sometimes to a different portion of the building.  Although I knew that this was probably just the result of the inexactness of the program, it did little to calm my nerves.

The next morning, I woke up extra early and was the first person at the courthouse at 7:59 AM.  I immediately made my way to the grand jury room where I found my iPad waiting for me.

There are several lessons to be learned from this incident.  Fortunately, I already knew to heavily securitize the iPad.  Fortunately, I store little work information on my iPad, but I had protected it in various ways, including password entry.  I flirted with deleting the contents of my iPad from afar – something that one can do using the “Find My iPhone” utility – but I decided that if there was one safe place one can leave one’s iPad overnight – it is the grand jury room of a county courthouse.

But of course, the main lesson to be learned is to keep better track of one’s mobile devices.